Why can’t we agree on when governments can consent to external intervention? A theoretical inquiry

E. Lieblich
{"title":"Why can’t we agree on when governments can consent to external intervention? A theoretical inquiry","authors":"E. Lieblich","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2020.1773120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Governments may lawfully request assistance from other states in many instances. However, once a government is challenged internally, things become complex. The key question is when, if at all, governments possess the legal authority to invite assistance against armed opposition? This article does not answer this question doctrinally or normatively. Rather, it explores why it remains so difficult to resolve, by utilising three theoretical approaches to international law: instrumental, critical, and ethical. Instrumentally, it is difficult to agree on desirable outcomes, or on a general standard on authority that would achieve them. From a critical perspective, standards on authority collapse into politics. Ethically, the question of authority to consent is entangled with the authority to resort to force internally, an issue scantly addressed by international law. Ultimately, this article seeks to uncover key theoretical problems that must be overcome in order to defend a plausible standard on authority to consent.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"25 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2020.1773120","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2020.1773120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Governments may lawfully request assistance from other states in many instances. However, once a government is challenged internally, things become complex. The key question is when, if at all, governments possess the legal authority to invite assistance against armed opposition? This article does not answer this question doctrinally or normatively. Rather, it explores why it remains so difficult to resolve, by utilising three theoretical approaches to international law: instrumental, critical, and ethical. Instrumentally, it is difficult to agree on desirable outcomes, or on a general standard on authority that would achieve them. From a critical perspective, standards on authority collapse into politics. Ethically, the question of authority to consent is entangled with the authority to resort to force internally, an issue scantly addressed by international law. Ultimately, this article seeks to uncover key theoretical problems that must be overcome in order to defend a plausible standard on authority to consent.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么我们不能就政府何时可以同意外部干预达成一致?理论探究
摘要在许多情况下,政府可以合法地向其他国家请求援助。然而,一旦政府内部受到挑战,事情就会变得复杂起来。关键问题是,如果有的话,政府何时拥有邀请援助反对武装反对派的法律权力?这篇文章没有从理论上或规范上回答这个问题。相反,它通过利用国际法的三种理论方法:工具性、批判性和道德性,探讨了为什么它仍然如此难以解决。从工具上讲,很难就理想的结果达成一致,也很难就实现这些结果的权威性的一般标准达成一致。从一个批判性的角度来看,权威标准会瓦解为政治。从道义上讲,同意的权力问题与在国内诉诸武力的权力纠缠在一起,而国际法很少涉及这一问题。最终,本文试图揭示必须克服的关键理论问题,以捍卫同意权的合理标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Quashing protests abroad: The CSTO’s intervention in Kazakhstan Intervention by invitation and the scope of state consent Anticipatory consent to military intervention: analysis in the wake of the coup d’état in Niger in 2023 The war in Ukraine and legal limitations on Russian vetoes Digest of state practice: 1 January – 30 June 2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1